AimsTo evaluate whether the distance from the site of event to an invasive heart centre, acute coronary angiography (CAG)/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and hospital-level of care (invasive heart centre vs. local hospital) is associated with survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients.Methods and resultsNationwide historical follow-up study of 41 186 unselected OHCA patients, in whom resuscitation was attempted between 2001 and 2013, identified through the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry. We observed an increase in the proportion of patients receiving bystander CPR (18% in 2001, 60% in 2013, P < 0.001), achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (10% in 2001, 29% in 2013, P < 0.001) and being admitted directly to an invasive centre (26% in 2001, 45% in 2013, P < 0.001). Simultaneously, 30-day survival rose from 5% in 2001 to 12% in 2013, P < 0.001. Among patients achieving ROSC, a larger proportion underwent acute CAG/PCI (5% in 2001, 27% in 2013, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients undergoing acute CAG/PCI annually in each region was defined as the CAG/PCI index. The following variables were associated with lower mortality in multivariable analyses: direct admission to invasive heart centre (HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89–0.93), CAG/PCI index (HR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25–0.45), population density above 2000 per square kilometre (HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89–0.98), bystander CPR (HR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95–0.99) and witnessed OHCA (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.85–0.89), whereas distance to the nearest invasive centre was not associated with survival.ConclusionAdmission to an invasive heart centre and regional performance of acute CAG/PCI were associated with improved survival in OHCA patients, whereas distance to the invasive centre was not. These results support a centralized strategy for immediate post-resuscitation care in OHCA patients.
BackgroundMechanical chest compressions have been proposed to provide high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite the growing use of mechanical chest compression devices, only few studies have addressed their impact on CPR quality. This study aims to evaluate mechanical chest compressions provided by LUCAS-2 (Lund University Cardiac Assist System) compared with manual chest compression in a cohort of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases.MethodsIn this prospective study conducted in the Central Denmark Region, Denmark, the emergency medical service attempted resuscitation and reported data on 696 non-traumatic OHCA patients between April 2011 and February 2013. Of these, 155 were treated with LUCAS CPR after an episode with manual CPR. The CPR quality was evaluated using transthoracic impedance measurements collected from the LIFEPAK 12 defibrillator, and the effect was assessed in terms of chest compression rate, no-flow time and no-flow fraction; the fraction of time during resuscitation in which the patient is without spontaneous circulation receiving no chest compression.ResultsThe median total episode duration was 21 minutes, and the episode with LUCAS CPR was significantly longer than the manual CPR episode, 13 minutes vs. 5 minutes, p < 0.001. The no-flow fraction was significantly lower during LUCAS CPR (16%) than during manual CPR (35%); difference 19% (95% CI: 16% to 21%; p < 0.001). No differences were found in pre- and post-shock no-flow time throughout manual CPR and LUCAS CPR.Contrary to the manual CPR, the average compression rate during LUCAS CPR was in conformity with the current Guidelines for Resuscitation, 102/minute vs. 124/minute, p < 0.001.ConclusionMechanical chest compressions provided by the LUCAS device improve CPR quality by significantly reducing the NFF and by improving the quality of chest compression compared with manual CPR during OHCA resuscitation. However, data on end-tidal Co2 and chest compression depth surrogate parameters of CPR quality could not be reported.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.